246 Cal. App. 4th 1260
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Dr. Karen E. Goodrich, an obstetrician-gynecologist, was denied reappointment to Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center’s medical staff in 2012; she missed an administrative hearing and the hospital terminated her privileges.
- Goodrich’s counsel filed a writ of administrative mandate; the trial court denied the petition and judgment was entered on June 4, 2013. Goodrich did not appeal.
- After counsel withdrew, Goodrich (in propria persona) filed multiple post-judgment motions attempting to relitigate the same issues; the trial court repeatedly denied them as improper.
- Sierra Vista moved to declare Goodrich a vexatious litigant; the trial court initially denied the motion but warned that similar unsubstantiated filings could prompt renewal.
- Goodrich filed another post-judgment motion seeking essentially the same relief; the court then granted Sierra Vista’s renewed motion, declaring Goodrich vexatious under Code Civ. Proc. § 391(b)(2) and (b)(3), ordered a $25,000 bond, and issued a prefiling order.
- Goodrich appealed the vexatious-litigant designation; the Court of Appeal affirmed, finding substantial evidence that her repeated post-judgment filings unreasonably burdened the defendant and the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Goodrich’s post-judgment filings constitute "repeatedly relitigat[ing]" under §391(b)(2) | Three motions are not enough to show "repeatedly"; statute requires more than the three filings at issue | The filings repeatedly sought the same relief after final judgment and after admonition, showing risk of repetition and burdening the court | Affirmed: three or more successive unmeritorious relitigation attempts after admonition can satisfy §391(b)(2) when they burden court and defendant |
| Whether Goodrich’s conduct qualifies under §391(b)(3) for filing unmeritorious/frivolous papers and causing delay | Her motions raised legitimate claims of changed circumstances and were not frivolous | Her repeated, post-judgment motions were unmeritorious, ignored court admonitions, and were intended to relitigate and delay | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports finding she repeatedly filed unmeritorious motions and engaged in tactics to cause delay |
Key Cases Cited
- Shalant v. Girardi, 51 Cal.4th 1164 (discusses purpose of vexatious litigant statutes and security requirement)
- Holcomb v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn., 129 Cal.App.4th 1494 (adverb "repeatedly" refers to past pattern creating risk of repetition)
- Morton v. Wagner, 156 Cal.App.4th 963 (three motions may suffice when they repeatedly seek same relief; no bright-line rule)
- Golin v. Allenby, 190 Cal.App.4th 616 (court must weigh evidence and statutory criteria; consider reasonable probability of prevailing)
- Kachig v. Boothe, 22 Cal.App.3d 626 (principle that parties may rely on finality of judgment)